Fishman v. GRBR, Inc.
2017 Mont. LEXIS 603
| Mont. | 2017Background
- GRBR operated guided trail rides; Fishman (participant) booked a ride and reported height/weight so GRBR assigned him a large horse, “Big,” with appropriate saddle/tack.
- GRBR presented and Fishman signed a Supervised Equine Rental Agreement warning that saddle girths (cinches) may loosen and cause saddle slippage/fall.
- GRBR followed a standard pre-ride procedure: saddling and checking cinches multiple times (including a wrangler riding Big) and a corral safety check during which Nancy observed Fishman leaning and instructed him to re-center the saddle.
- On the trail Fishman slid to one side, attempted to jump off, landed on the ground; the saddle remained on the horse but on its side; no horse bucking or equipment breakage was alleged.
- Fishman sued GRBR for negligence, arguing Nancy failed to inspect the saddle; GRBR moved for summary judgment under Montana’s Equine Activities Act (§ 27-1-725 to -727, MCA), arguing the injury resulted from an inherent risk for which liability is barred. The District Court granted summary judgment for GRBR; Fishman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Equine Activities Act bars liability for Fishman’s fall | Fishman: saddle slippage resulted from GRBR/Nancy’s failure to reasonably inspect/maintain tack, invoking the statutory exception to immunity | GRBR: the injury was an inherent, foreseeable risk of equine activities (cinch loosening) and inspections were performed reasonably and prudently | Held: The Act bars liability; accident was an inherent risk and Fishman failed to show tack failure or lack of reasonable/prudent inspection, so statutory exception did not apply |
| Whether disputed factual issues precluded summary judgment | Fishman: disputed facts about what Nancy observed and told him before the trail materially bear on inspection/notice | GRBR: alleged inspection checks are undisputed and communications do not create material fact on whether the equipment was reasonably/prudently inspected or whether risk was inherent | Held: No genuine dispute of material fact; District Court properly resolved on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDermott v. Carie, 124 P.3d 168 (Mont. 2005) (explains practical effect of Equine Activities Act and that sponsors are not liable for expected inherent risks)
- Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 313 P.3d 839 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo application of M.R. Civ. P. 56)
- Bird v. Cascade Cnty., 386 P.3d 602 (Mont. 2016) (summary judgment standards and review principles)
- Corporate Air v. Edwards Jet Ctr. Mont. Inc., 190 P.3d 1111 (Mont. 2008) (summary judgment is an extreme remedy; disputes over material facts should go to trial)